Does Word of God Matter?
Mar. 13th, 2013 10:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ljwritesOriginally posted to Avatar Online, but since I have long since despaired of intelligent discussion on most fan forums I'll repost here. See also The Myth of Canon (found via amyraine 's essay recs), Death of the Author etc.
I was posting to a thread on Jet's body (not like THAT!) when a poster and I fell to talking about the Word of God from the creators about Jet being dead. While I thought it was logical to think Jet was dead, I also argued that within the confines of the story there's no hard barrier to thinking he survived. Since he wasn't shown dying on screen, the creators' telling us he was dead had no bearing on viewers' interpretation of the story.
Sure it was Nickelodeon and they couldn't show an on-screen death, etc., but so what? Production changes and ratings considerations affect shows all the time, and we're talking about the final product that came out as the result of all those processes, not the show that might have been if any number of circumstances had been different. For that matter, without any studio interference Azula and Toph would have been boys and Iroh would have been a villain secretly working for Ozai.
To me the story is the story as presented, not some revelation by the creators that we must interpret according to their wishes. What the creators think but isn't in the story is just another interpretation, not the story itself. Mssrs. D and K may be all for Kataang, but if die-hard Zutarans see ATLA as a great love story between Katara and Zuko, why not? Or, in another fandom, J.K. Rowling might have said Dumbledore was gay, but that's not in the text. Dumbledore/McGonagall and all the rest are just as "canon" as Dumbledore/Grindenwald.
Now some might prefer a more coherent reality in the form of interpretive unity, and Word of God is a great aid to that. Goodness knows geeks argue enough about fictional continuity, why add more fuel to the fire?
To me, though, the important thing is not that everyone have a consistent understanding of canon but rather that stories generate new interpretations and meanings. That's how stories stand the test of time, by giving birth to new meanings and not by being fixed in the One True Interpretation.
It seems to me reliance on Word of God too often takes away flexibility in favor of easy answers. The gods can talk, but no one needs to listen. The story should speak for itself.
amyraine 's essay recs), Death of the Author etc.I was posting to a thread on Jet's body (not like THAT!) when a poster and I fell to talking about the Word of God from the creators about Jet being dead. While I thought it was logical to think Jet was dead, I also argued that within the confines of the story there's no hard barrier to thinking he survived. Since he wasn't shown dying on screen, the creators' telling us he was dead had no bearing on viewers' interpretation of the story.
Sure it was Nickelodeon and they couldn't show an on-screen death, etc., but so what? Production changes and ratings considerations affect shows all the time, and we're talking about the final product that came out as the result of all those processes, not the show that might have been if any number of circumstances had been different. For that matter, without any studio interference Azula and Toph would have been boys and Iroh would have been a villain secretly working for Ozai.
To me the story is the story as presented, not some revelation by the creators that we must interpret according to their wishes. What the creators think but isn't in the story is just another interpretation, not the story itself. Mssrs. D and K may be all for Kataang, but if die-hard Zutarans see ATLA as a great love story between Katara and Zuko, why not? Or, in another fandom, J.K. Rowling might have said Dumbledore was gay, but that's not in the text. Dumbledore/McGonagall and all the rest are just as "canon" as Dumbledore/Grindenwald.
Now some might prefer a more coherent reality in the form of interpretive unity, and Word of God is a great aid to that. Goodness knows geeks argue enough about fictional continuity, why add more fuel to the fire?
To me, though, the important thing is not that everyone have a consistent understanding of canon but rather that stories generate new interpretations and meanings. That's how stories stand the test of time, by giving birth to new meanings and not by being fixed in the One True Interpretation.
It seems to me reliance on Word of God too often takes away flexibility in favor of easy answers. The gods can talk, but no one needs to listen. The story should speak for itself.
